David, you're secure in your beliefs, and that's noble.

However, absent a legal challenge, which I'm stepping out on a limb and guessing you're not planning to undertake, it's done. Like it, hate it, it is done. The votes were cast and tablulated, and the majority of those voting got what they wanted.

Whether they should have wanted it, whether they will be happy with their decision in 2, 5, 18 years, it is done.

So unless you have a legal rabbit to pull out the hat, wouldn't your time be far better spent on influencing something that can be changed rather than tilting at something that, most likely, can not be changed?

Such rabbits exist from time to time, to be sure. Just ask the rail folks. I don't see one here, but I don't own the magic hat either.

When someone has strong passions, and time to utilize, it seems a waste to see the passion directed to the past and not the future.

I wish you well.

Hi Kevin (nice to see a real name), respectful and good advice. History can teach us for the future. Most can see the irony of the incredible contradictions of the Sonic's position. Maybe next time citizens will be a little more leary and interested when the officials ad and pr machines crank up for the next thing. Hey and the local news called me.

David,

You can't take the economic experts' testimony at face value. The purpose of an expert who says there's no economic value isn't necessarily to prove that there's no economic value. The purpose can be as simple as showing that the numbers the city used to decide on the economic impact of the Sonics were just as much voodoo as the figures used by the PBC economic expert.

Here, the city has to show damages and has to show them with some degree of certainty. The purpose of this testimony may only be to cast a shadow of doubt upon all the economic testimony in the trial -- that works in favor for the Sonics in the damages part of the trial and in fact might save the PBC millions of dollars.

That's millions of dollars less that the city of Oklahoma City will probably end up having to subsidize their NBA team.

I think you should be happy about that.

Sonic's Economic Expert in response: "In your view, Oklahoma City might be worse off for having the Sonics move there?" Lawrence asked. "Yes," said Humphreys. Just pointing out this is the opposite what the mayor, chamber and ads told people here in OKC. So who is telling the truth?

I have stayed consistent, unlike the Sonic owners, on the economics of sports on a city. Good public policy should use facts and numbers, peer reviewed studies and the history of other cities. But that just gets in the way of reality that this is moving 200+ million from the citizens to help the owners make money.



you're missing the point david. the owners already have money. just because they have money doesn't mean they should pay for a public building that is used for all kinds of stuff. in fact... they pay rent there as well. and now that we have this large venue, a whole lot of bands are swinging thru town as well.

we paid that money for them to give us something to do... to be entertained... to have a team to take pride in...

and most importantly...

to lay the smack down on DALLAS and that @$$ clown of an owner, mark cuban.




i'm really confused at what you're looking for from us and the people on newsok.

ok, ok.... you're right. i've been swindled by this billionaire that is enduring all kinds of abuse heaped on him by a "world class city". i was a fool for voting to give money to this guy who is spending quite a lot out of his pocket to get us an nba team.
can you believe the nerve of that clay bennett.... what was i thinking!?!

you're right buddy, they took us for a ride and their economists are two faced liars. you were right all along... maps for millionaires got the best of me.





you were right DG.... you were right all along!












thank you! thank you so much david.

(was that what you were looking for?)

Sonic's Economic Expert in response: "In your view, Oklahoma City might be worse off for having the Sonics move there?" Lawrence asked. "Yes," said Humphreys. Just pointing out this is the opposite what the mayor, chamber and ads told people here in OKC. So who is telling the truth?

These 8 guys have probably donated hundreds of millions over the years to OKC and the state...You?

Why let $5 a month consume your life anyway?

Be better served to rant about gas or something that actually affects our lives

Sonic's Economic Expert in response: "In your view, Oklahoma City might be worse off for having the Sonics move there?" Lawrence asked. "Yes," said Humphreys. Just pointing out this is the opposite what the mayor, chamber and ads told people here in OKC. So who is telling the truth?

A lot of us can think for ourselves. I personally don't rely on my mayor, chamber and/or ads to make my decision. Nor do I rely on economists. There are some things that make sense. Do you grab onto anyone whose theories fit with what you want them to be, or do you think for yourself? Did you notice that Seattle was more than willing to put economists on the stand who disagree with those of the Sonics', and were the tables turned, the city of Seattle would be trotting out the Sonics' economist. They're all politicians, and anyone who expects complete honesty out of politicians is bound to be seriously disappointed in life. The honest ones have trouble getting elected, sad to say. The Seattle city government has been proven to be at least as mendacious as those here, and they're certainly dumber. So much for it being a hotbed of elite intellectualism up there.

Personally, I think there are some economic benefits to having a team here, but far less than the pro-economists estimate and more than the anti-economists estimate. They haven't looked at Oklahoma City specifically, which suffers from countrywide underenthusiasm as far as impression goes, and which would benefit from more attention being focused on it. Oklahoma City is a far nicer city than the rest of the country assumes, and so having a team here helps improve our image, which can have economic benefits.

But, the main reason I was pro-arena, which is almost identical to most of my friends, is because it's just fun to have an NBA team in town. It's the best $50 I could spend for a lifetime of entertainment.

David Glover must be a 40 year old virgin or something.

None of the people I know voted for the sonics because we thought it was going to make us all rich, lol.

The NBA is coming to OKC. I haven't been this excited in a long time and I can't wait! Not only do we get our own team, we get to see other teams come and play. I travel all the time and people ask me, "What is in OKC?" and I will say, "The NBA!"

No one is ripping us off. Clay Bennet paid $350 million dollars for the Sonics. He is projected to lose quite a bit of money before he makes a dime. If you put $350 million into a 3% savings account, you get back $10.5 million a year. Bennet is never going to make more money than if he just deposited his money into a savings account, and trust me.. there are better ways to make money off $350 million than putting it into a savings account or buying an NBA team.

The main profit in the NBA is made when the team sells, (ask Schultz), public subsidies and beneficial leases. City officials admit they will go from $500,000 a year plus at the Ford to maybe breaking even. I understand the zeal. The Sonic's own expert shows the campaign on citizens and legislators was disingenuous. Not the best way to set public policy, but who cares about all the that, in this case not the majority of voters that showed up.

DG
As a native Oklahoman displaced at this time, I was unable to vote, but if I could, it would have been a resounding YES. I for one am GRATEFUL to the entire ownership group of the SONICS. They did not have to spend their money in this way. But because they have, I have the opportunity to root for a NBA team from my home State. These guys indivudually and collectively have contributed MILLIONS to Oklahoma and I for one appreciate their philantrophy. They believe in my home State and so do I, regardless of what naysayers and doomsdayers like you might say. We were not duped, lied to or otherwise finnagled, we just see a better, more vibrant, more attractive OKC in our future.

The main profit in the NBA is made when the team sells, (ask Schultz), public subsidies and beneficial leases. City officials admit they will go from $500,000 a year plus at the Ford to maybe breaking even. I understand the zeal. The Sonic's own expert shows the campaign on citizens and legislators was disingenuous. Not the best way to set public policy, but who cares about all the that, in this case not the majority of voters that showed up.

One cannot count on making a profit when the team is sold. Case in point. Neither Paul Allen (Trailblazers) nor Michael Heisley (Grizzlies) have been able to even find a buyer for their teams, much less make a profit. Why? Both teams are stuck in their respective cities and they're money losers. Howard Schultz was only able to make the profit he did because there was an option to move the team if a new arena was not built (which is why it is so hypocritical of him to be protesting now). He'd be another $40 million in the hole and still have the team if there hadn't been an option to move. If it were such a financial windfall, people would be falling all over themselves to buy those three teams.

Also, as we have learned from the housing market, one cannot always count on rapid appreciation in value, even if it has occurred in the past.

The Sonics' owners are taking a financial risk. That's why I was and am in favor of the city doing it's part.

Can we have a separate thread for all of this David Glover nonsense?

I point out information, that the Sonic's own experts agree with and you call it nonsense - quite the anti-intellectual statment. Are you the kind of person who believe dinosaur bones are really a hoax? :) I understand many want a basketball team at any cost to others - I just happen to be one that thinks that the subsidies to benefit is a high cost to citizens. A business that can't stand on it's own sounds like an unsound business model from a truly free enterprise standpoint.

And I pointed out that what you say about the Sonics' experts agreeing with you is pure advocacy to show something at trial, yet you fail to address that and continue to spew further nonsense which has absolutely nothing to do with the trial.

Recall I pointed out that when one economic expert testifies as to a fact, you have to have another economic expert which testifies as to the opposite. The goal of which is to muddy the water enough to show that both methods are complete voodoo and hopefully, in the Sonics' case, save them millions of dollars in liability. It's not perjury. You can't perjure yourself by advocating an opinion, which is what you see happening here. These economic experts are advocating their professional opinions because that's what they've been paid rather handsomely to do. What you see is trial advocacy. You're reading too much into it.

I'm all for a spirited debate on what should and shouldn't be public funding, but please don't hijack threads just to make an off-topic point.

You are right David, we knew that the "subsidies to benefit it" would be a high cost.. We knew that the Sonics could not stand on their own and that it would require tax dollars to make it happen.

We even had a vote on it.

Why would we vote to subsidize the Sonics and have a problem with subsidizing the sonics? You're acting like we were tricked or something. We were not handed a poll saying, "Do you like the NBA?" We were asked, "Would you be willing to use tax money for the NBA?" We answered, "Yes please!"

Seattle also voted in 2006 on this issue, and they voted not to subsidize the Sonics.

I'm done with this.

I see a thread call news on Sonic's Lawsuit with 20+ pages of comments. I was pointing out the contradiction in what the Sonic's experts testify in court to and what the Sonics, PR and Ad Machine said in OKC. Seems like the Sonic's Trial and how it impacts OKC and pointing out inconsistency would fit here. If I started a new thread someone would probably decry I should have just said it here - not a new thread. So now I understand you think $200,000,000+ public subsidy makes sense - I don't.

I see a thread call news on Sonic's Lawsuit with 20+ pages of comments. I was pointing out the contradiction in what the Sonic's experts testify in court to and what the Sonics, PR and Ad Machine said in OKC.

And I pointed out that different economic experts can serve different purposes, and what they say has less to do with reality and everything to do with trial advocacy. If this is your argument, it's just a non-starter. I don't expect you to know much about trial advocacy. I happen to know a thing or two about it. That is exactly what is going on here.

If you can't see how the addition of several new millionaires to the economy plus several jobs, plus filled restaurants and hotels downtown won't be a boon to the economy, then I suppose we can't help you.

If you think the economics of a city is some sort of zero-sum game, i.e., guns vs. butter, then again, we can't help you.

You're entitled to your opinion. We all know what it is. Here, we are talking about legal issues and a trial. You want to talk about the use of a public subsidy and to do that, you want to interrupt a conversation about a very interesting lawsuit. Be polite and start your own thread. Trust me, people will not ignore you. You're a celebrity now :)


So now I understand you think $200,000,000+ public subsidy makes sense - I don't.

That should be your topic.

I point out information, that the Sonic's own experts agree with and you call it nonsense - quite the anti-intellectual statment. Are you the kind of person who believe dinosaur bones are really a hoax? :) I understand many want a basketball team at any cost to others - I just happen to be one that thinks that the subsidies to benefit is a high cost to citizens. A business that can't stand on it's own sounds like an unsound business model from a truly free enterprise standpoint.

Perhaps you can have the Village city council pass an Oklahoma version of I-91.

You are right David, we knew that the "subsidies to benefit it" would be a high cost.. We knew that the Sonics could not stand on their own and that it would require tax dollars to make it happen.

We even had a vote on it.

Why would we vote to subsidize the Sonics and have a problem with subsidizing the sonics? You're acting like we were tricked or something. We were not handed a poll saying, "Do you like the NBA?" We were asked, "Would you be willing to use tax money for the NBA?" We answered, "Yes please!"

Seattle also voted in 2006 on this issue, and they voted not to subsidize the Sonics.

I'm done with this.


WORD!:congrats:

Why is anyone responding to anything DG writes? He doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it, and he will never get it. DG, your object is heard and overruled 68% to 32%.

Why is anyone responding to anything DG writes? He doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it, and he will never get it. DG, your object is heard and overruled 68% to 32%.


While I don't agree with most of DG writes - who cares if he writes it? If you don't like it don't respond. Maybe someone else will. I know anyone who writes anything anti-sonics is the anti-christ around here...

While I don't agree with most of DG writes - who cares if he writes it? If you don't like it don't respond. Maybe someone else will. I know anyone who writes anything anti-sonics is the anti-christ around here...

That's putting it lightly. :)

While I don't agree with most of DG writes - who cares if he writes it? If you don't like it don't respond. Maybe someone else will. I know anyone who writes anything anti-sonics is the anti-christ around here...

I just mind that he wants to talk about the bond election in a thread about the lawsuit. If he wants to talk about the bond election, post in a thread about it or start a new one. I'm not okay with him comandeering the active threads of this forum so that he can self-promote.

Mid - gotcha - point taken. :)

The Sonics have filed a motion to exclude Tim Ceis testimony as a rebuttal witness.....

" In discovery, the city repeatedly instructed Cies not to answer questions about his discussions with K&L Gates and consultant Wally Walker on these matters by asserting the attorney-client privilege. The City should not be allowed to now ambush the PBC on the last day of the trial by impliedly waiving this same privilege in its questioning of Ceis."

"Alternatively, if such testimony is allowed, a waiver of the Cities attorney-client privilege should be declared and the City should be ordered to immediately produce all communications with K&L Gates and any City personel reflecting efforts to procure a local buyer or force a sale"

http://www.950kjr.com/cc-common/mlib/645/06/645_1214337378.pdf

So what does all this mean exactly?^^

Thanks, southside! Here's the motion (which seems quite reasonable to me) as graphic images, which is what the PDF file contains. I've omitted page 8, the certificate of mailing page.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/trial_motion_6_24_08_p1.gif

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/trial_motion_6_24_08_p2.gif

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/trial_motion_6_24_08_p3.gif

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/trial_motion_6_24_08_p4.gif

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/trial_motion_6_24_08_p5.gif

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/trial_motion_6_24_08_p6.gif

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/trial_motion_6_24_08_p7.gif

What it means, traxx, is that either (a) the rebuttal witness should not be permitted on the grounds stated in the motion, or (b) if allowed, before the testimony is given, PBC should be given copies of all documents (e.g., e-mails, etc.) which relate to the "Poisoned Well" presentation and matters surrounding it. Sounds like a good motion to me, either way.

Thanks Doug! I think it's a good motion that will be granted either way.

I am no lawyer but I think the Sonics lawyers have caught the city's attorneys ill prepared yet again. the ruling should be interesting

I haven't really been keeping score, but my general impression is that PBC's lawyers have done much better in presenting their case than Seattle's lawyer's have. I think that you have it right, dcsooner, when you say "ill prepared."

Didn't that Seattle lawyer get a million to do this?

I could lose a lot more efficiently for a million dollars. Hell, I would do it for half that.

hehe.

I think what they did was set aside a million at the beginning of litigation for legal fees.

Tomorrow the trial concludes. Does anyone know how long Judge Pechman has before having to render a verdict?

Any idea on when she is going to rule on this motion?

Did anyone listen to KREF this morning at about 8:00 or after? They were going to have the news 9 legal analyst on to talk about the Sonics trial and get his opinion. I had to get out of the car before he came on. I was just interested in what he thought.

Most seem to think she will release her decision with in 10 days after the trial. At the conclusion of the trial she should tell when she will release her decision.

This is the PBC's Proposed Findings of Fact (18 pages):

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/users/ericwilliams/PBCsProposedFOF-COL.pdf

And the city's(82 Pages):

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/06/25/2008016572.pdf

I didn't know this-

The Associated Press
SEATTLE (AP) - About $3 million in legal fees are at stake in the Seattle trial that will determine whether the Sonics are able to buy their way out of the KeyArena lease.

The lease contains a clause that says the losing party pays for the cost of litigation. The exact amount is likely to be another item in dispute between the city and the team.

Closing arguments are scheduled Thursday in federal court in Seattle in the city's lawsuit to make the Sonics play at the KeyArena for the two years remaining on the lease.

The judge is also expected to say when she'll announce her decision. The NBA has already approved moving the franchise to Oklahoma City.

> The NBA has already approved moving the franchise to Oklahoma City

Sort of. Per their own regs, the NBA' board of gov's has approved a move for the 08-09 season, contingent on things working out in the northwest. If they do not resolve in time, then the PBC has to reapply for relocation again (if memory serves correctly.)

> The NBA has already approved moving the franchise to Oklahoma City

Sort of. Per their own regs, the NBA' board of gov's has approved a move for the 08-09 season, contingent on things working out in the northwest. If they do not resolve in time, then the PBC has to reapply for relocation again (if memory serves correctly.)

After the way the city of Seattle has conducted its business, do you doubt the NBA would want to stay there? Seattle has burn its bridges.

> do you doubt

Nope, just noting that the relocation vote wasn't an end all, be all type vote.
NBA rules apparently only permit a relocation vote to apply in the next upcoming season, as contrasted to being able to vote and hold that whenever a team can, this year, next, or the year after, today's votes covers all options.

If this year's vote doesn'tpan out time wise, yes, I do expect the BOG to again approave a relocation when next presented to them.

i thought that if a team can't relocate that year, that the next BOG vote was just a formality and that there was really nothing to worry about.

is that not the case?

i thought that if a team can't relocate that year, that the next BOG vote was just a formality and that there was really nothing to worry about.

is that not the case?

That stance was confirmed by Joel Litvin, the NBA's president of basketball operations.

"The constitution only allows the board to approve a relocation that would begin the subsequent season," Litvin said. "However, the committee stated in its report that if the team does not relocate for next season and reapplies for 2009-10 or 2010-11, the board should approve the renewed application."

FInal day of trial

Minute-by-minute: Day 6 at Seattle vs. Sonics trial | Sports | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington (http://www.king5.com/sports/stories/NW_062608SSB_fin_sonics_trial_minute_by_minute_TP. 3a9cc72a.html)

Seattle's rebuttal witness Dep. Mayor Ceis was NOT allowed to testify. His testimony was contested by motion earlier this week by PBC, and PBC prevailed on that issue. Court's in recess right now, and then I think they start closing arguments.

The trial is over. Judge Pechman says she will post her decision online next Wednesday, July 2 at 4 p.m.

3:25 p.m. - The trial is over. Judge Pechman says she will post her decision online next Wednesday, July 2 at 4 p.m. Be sure to log on to KING5.com and NWCN.com to read the ruling.

(Just to add those links)

3:25 p.m. - The trial is over. Judge Pechman says she will post her decision online next Wednesday, July 2 at 4 p.m. Be sure to log on to KING5.com and NWCN.com to read the ruling.

(Just to add those links)

Thank you.

What's the impression of which way this thing is going??

I would like to know how the average seattle fan thinks it is going to go. I have felt like both sides got off topic a bit, but seattle did moreso. I feel like pbc made the more convincing showing, but this is a pretty rare type of case...so it is hard to predict.

well... their local news seems to think they have this in the bag.

KING 5 News Up Front Video On Demand | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington (http://www.king5.com/video/upfront-index.html?nvid=256793)

Before the trial, I would have agreed with them. Now, I'm not so sure.

Not a serious, practical, or possible suggestion.. just something funny we were talking about at work.

So what if the contract requires a performance, does it have to be a good performance?

Imagine if the Sonics just hired a bunch of people off the street to play games in Seattle. It would be the.. not so super sonics. It isn't like the sonics are winning games anyway so it wouldn't make a difference, especially when you consider that almost no one goes to their games in Seattle anyway.

Idk.. it sounded funnier when we were talking about... doesn't look so funny written down.

I dunno. I felt really good about it up until closing arguements today.

What if she says they have to stay one more year and can pay off the lease for the 09-10 season. Make everyone happy and the ford center should be wrapping up its improvements by then.

I don't see a Solomon split the baby decision on the horizon.
If Seattle carried the day on the argument that a deal's and deal and the deals ays benefits are too immeasurable to cover by $$$ alone, then the specific perofrmance clause can mean no early lease exit.
If the city can be made whole by $$$, that alone doesn't resolve the Q, but it gets things closer to the movng vans.

Not being a major round baller fan, I think they can be made whole by $$ myself, but then of course, the question becomes how much does it take. That shouldn't delay a move, but that question will be interesting to watch unfold.

So what if the contract requires a performance, does it have to be a good performance?

They could field an all midget team. Tallest player is 4 ft.

If they force them to play there, I think the team should try to lose every game played at Key. Best thing for OKC is the team get some more high draft choices next year and that would come with major losses. Not to be nasty but if I were the team owners I would make sure when I left, Key was in disrepair. Is that a Christian move on my part?

If pbc wins, there will be a separate, probably jury trial to calculate damages but that wouldn't stop the team from moving. What if the team moved but then damages were calculated at like 100 mil? That would suck.

Also don't listen to KING 5 on anything legal. Yesterday they said in the blog - which comment was later deleted- that the judge hates being overturned so much thatshe is letting the losing side win all the objections. In other words, completely tainting the outcome of the trial by prejudicing the objection rulings based on who she thinks is losing as opposed to ruling based on law. So, yeah, don't worry about KING5. Awful legal writing.

I believe the decision will be split. Requiring the team to play in Seattle in 08-09 and allowing them to move in 09-10.

In fairness to King5, they were quoting Brian Robinson of SOS fame who claimed he was paraphrasing an unidentified Seattle attorney that told him that. There is no confirmation that the "unidentified Seattle attorney" is Slade (I leak more than the Titanic) Gorton.

Remember that's 4pm Pacific Time folks, 6pm our time.

In fairness to King5, they were quoting Brian Robinson of SOS fame who claimed he was paraphrasing an unidentified Seattle attorney that told him that. There is no confirmation that the "unidentified Seattle attorney" is Slade (I leak more than the Titanic) Gorton.


They've been posting half-ass crap like that the entire time. Remember when Seattle was "conceding" the case?

Why do people all of a sudden think they're going to give one year to each?